User talk:Djsasso
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Removal of New York Rangers template from player pages
Why? Isn't that the whole purpose of the template? If it's not going to be put in relevant articles - why does it even exist? That's the way its done with some of the other sports team templates. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is meant for New York Rangers pages, ie team seasons, team arenas, team player lists. If you add it onto individual players imagine how messy a players page would be who played for 5 teams. -Djsasso (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously you aren't going to add it for EVERY player who ever played for the team... but at least the ones that are actually in the template itself... or at least the ones with retired numbers..... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose that could make sense. Only problem I see with that is that if it is on some people, then people will start to add it to everyone. Looking at this template a number of people listed on it should probably be removed. The important people section is pretty POV. Should probably just have honoured members section like we do for the main team page itself. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously you aren't going to add it for EVERY player who ever played for the team... but at least the ones that are actually in the template itself... or at least the ones with retired numbers..... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] re: Ron Wilson
There's already a disambiguation page at Ron Wilson (disambiguation). I'm trying to move that page to the Ron Wilson page right now. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know I knew that. Its been one of those days. I have disambiguated Ron Wilson a few times now. I should know better haha. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User: Wassup54
Hello Djsasso. Wassup seems to have an anti-Canadian theme to his edits, concerning Quebec related articles; see St. Leonard, Quebec. I wonder if I should report him/her for possible disruptive editing. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I tried helping him/her out, but that edit is plain silly. POV stuff left and right. I have tried to his side etc. I dunno, sometimes it can be disheartening on wikipedia eh.. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This isnt anti-canadian edits, it is pro-Quebec edits, huge differences. All of you however seems reluctant to have Quebec being more mentioned. I understand that all of you live outside of Quebec and that you do not understand the nationalism movement here but you have to realize something: Only people living in Quebec have the right to define their own identity, independance or not. The majority of the population here consider themselves as Quebecers, hell even your house of common has declared that Quebecers form a nation inside a united Canada. So you should at least show some sort of respect by letting us define ourselves the way we see fit, no offense. Now Ill admit that I may have went too far in erasing totally canadian references, but I propose a compromise: to mention both canadian AND Quebecer identity for personnalities living in the province. What do you think. Wassup54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.162.252 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that your edits are changing content without any reason. Your politics aside, it does not affect the fact that say oh if someone's passport says they are Canadian, they are Canadian (for example). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I have blocked the range twice, but i won't be able to keep doing that as the range is for bell in montreal and I am not sure how many people that would be affecting. It may just come down to policing articles they are likely to hit and revert when necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It look like, you may have to 'block' his range again. Wassup54, has chosen to no longer sign in. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
For the block on User:216.20.118.66. You made my day. I get so sick of vandals... Trekphiler (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Toronto
Don't be insulting. Is that too much to ask? It seems lately that you are insulting to me when we disagree. If I use some 'pointed words' I add some smileys. Sometimes some arguments have to be debated until the participants have said everything they have to say. As for the IIHF article, it is an article. Its format is debatable, especially as the IIHF doesn't publish one. Alaney2k (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to insult you, in fact I was trying to do the exact opposite. I just was suggesting that we not cloud the issue with a completely different discussion. Though I must say everytime anything gets said to you, you cry foul. And it is kind of amusing that you almost always take the side opposite the wikiproject as though you are trying to cause trouble. (I am not saying you are. Its just interesting to note.) -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- These things are not crystal-clear, not black and white. Maybe I am contrarian, but I go along with what's decided. I don't start discussions with other users 'on the side', watch people's contributions or bring up the past. So I believe I am 'playing fair' and I appeal on that behalf. Whatever your opinion is of me. Alaney2k (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no opinion of you. I have seen you bring up discussions on the side before :P And watching peoples contributions is actually pretty normal. Most people "Watch" peoples talk pages of the projects they are a part of to make sure they don't miss conversations that pertain to topics that are of wider interest. That being said I don't do this but I know a good portion of the wikiproject does as I have people in the project reverting vandals on my page all the time. So I know its common. -Djsasso (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- These things are not crystal-clear, not black and white. Maybe I am contrarian, but I go along with what's decided. I don't start discussions with other users 'on the side', watch people's contributions or bring up the past. So I believe I am 'playing fair' and I appeal on that behalf. Whatever your opinion is of me. Alaney2k (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Isobel Stanley in photo credit
Apparently I vandalized the subtopic of women's ice hockey history on the ice hockey page when I added that one of the subjects in the photo that illustrates that section is Isobel Stanley, who is mentioned in the article. Vandalism was never my intention: I simply wanted to add information that is widely known about this well-known (in women's hockey circles) historic photograph. The caption published with the photo should include the information that Isobel Stanley is the player wearing white -- as it does in te original source cited on the page. Perhaps you can make this correction? Dheditor (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was the comment about checking out the ankles that makes it look like vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD close
Yes, I apologize if I was a bit verbose. Basically, the whole odd situation springs from these two conflicting facts/opinions:
- I believe there is a policy basis to delete all of these templates - all transclusions would have to be removed and precedent would be set which could lead to dozens of other deletions, thousands of edits could be involved
- A DRV was certain and there exists a very real chance I will be overturned in seven days and hundreds, if not thousands, of deleted revisions and transclusions will have to be restored, which is a waste of time.
Since the DRV was certain, I basically just did not want to jump the gun and create unnecessary work. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do see your point. Was sort of hoping this deletion combined with the hockey deletion would lead to the precedent finally once and for all being set. So yup might as well take it straight to DRV to have it reviewed. -Djsasso (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikicookie
[edit] "You hang up." "No, you hang up!"
This made me laugh. By the way, it still has a typo.... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flags
I need info. When did this war occur & who was the deletist warrior? If he/she wants the flags removed? it's all 30 teams or none. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was a couple weeks ago and it was the fellow that has been making all the pro-quebec edits. This is how we found out he existed was his warring over the flags used on the montreal pages. He wanted them quebec flags so another admin stepped in and removed them from the canadians article to stop the fighting. We were trying to just leave it be for awhile so that he would hopefully go away and then readd them. However, I am sure he will see this post on my talk page now and know what was going on. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean Wassup54? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted my changes, per your advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I definately agree with your POV. Sometimes its better to just see if it won't cool over for now. The other reason the admin removed them was that technically the flags violate WP:MOSFLAG, though the hockey project has mostly ignored that guideline. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted my changes, per your advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. -Djsasso (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind if the flags were deleted from all 30 team articles; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You mean Wassup54? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sens
I think you might want to count again, bud. You have already violated the 3RR rule on Ottawa Senators re removal of tags. Funny how things work out ain't it? CJ DUB (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I consider your constant adding of them as vandalism and as such they are not in violation of 3RR. You have a history of doing such things to cause trouble. Not to mention I count 3 times removed in 24 hours...not 4 which is needed to violate 3RR. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"You have a history of doing such things to cause trouble." Do I now? You might wanna try and prove that. Your preception maybe? I've never ever been banned, not once since I started editing in 2004.
Vandalism. Really. Now that is priceless. enjoy your horrible Sens article which you seem to own CJ DUB (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- No a history of incivility and rude remarks and not attempting to discuss things without attacking people. Like you are doing right now. I don't own the article, in fact I almost never edit it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be all that hard to prove, I have found a fairly large number of incivil remarks in talk pages and user pages and edit summaries without even having to look very hard. In fact the first edit summary you made to this page a few days ago is what caused me to start watching. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I pass the Wiki test for cred and conduct, having never been banned by anyone, ever, despite my ruthless editing style. CJ DUB (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not really, just means no one has cared enough to go through the hassle. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Lee
Good work on making Peter Lee a dab page and fixing links - thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I tend to do that when I notice someone dabing a link. Especially when I noticed that the page had a 3 other pages disambiguated on the top of it. When there are that many people with the same name and one of them not clearly more influential than the other it might as well be a dab page. -Djsasso (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] People From Edmonton
Spruce Grove is in the Edmonton area. It's not necessary to add people from spruce grove and the category only has 4 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it is, we specifically split the categories for a reason. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Don Gay
My watchlist notified me that you restore this article. Why was it deleted in the first place, and by whom? The article needs work, but the subject is clearly notable (and I'm a confirmed deletionist). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- The original version was tagged as a copy vio. I just restored it to merge histories since I noticed it was back. And it looks like it was actually you who put on the speedy to have the first version deleted now that I look at it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] {TOCnestright}
You removed the {TOCnestright} templates I used on several SC Finals articles, but I think it makes the layout look much better. Having the TOC as default, it splits the readable text, often separating the lead from the main text by a large TOC box and whitespace. With {TOCnestright} the text flows naturally, allowing you to read without interruption. Just my opinion, of course, but I thought it was an improvement. Jmj713 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that it makes the page heavy on one side and squishes the test into 4 or 5 word lines on the average resolution. Which I think is the reason for the white space, to stop the words from getting scrunched like that. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Columbus Blue Jackets
Thanks for the kind words! I've been putting a lot of effort in, and it's great to have it noticed. :) Macduffman (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Page move
Hey, the Orleans Blues of the CJHL changed their name to the Gloucester Rangers. By any chance could you move the Blues to the Rangers page for me? I can't make the move without an admin. DMighton (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
